Judged for being childless

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

Too late I’m afraid. Having reduced mobility infringes on many aspects of my life including driving. I had just loaded up the campervan and needed a change of clothes before driving the 100 odd miles to see him. He died before I could turn the keys. RIP. You were someone’s child once and were outlived by both your parents. What a guy, he got to the edge of the cliff and jumped off it.

WowwwwxI Could Not Believe My Eyes When I Read This Post ...It Makes Me Sooo Sad To See That So Many Kind Beautiful People Be Thought Of And Jusged And Labelled In Such A Wrong Unkind Rude Disrespectful Way :(((....Simply Because You All Have Been So Open And Honest And Truthful In Choosing Your Own Lifestyle And Beliefs And Ways Of How You Truly Feel About Your Choices Of Not Having Children Its Soooo Wrong To Be Treated And Labelled And Thought Of That Way .

And To Be Honest Many People Be It Couples ..Married ..Single Etc Etc Should Not Sadly Have Had Children As The Way They Traat There Children In The Most Terrible Cruelest Of Ways Some Because They Did Not Want Children In The First Place ..Some For The Wrong Reasins Like Thinking Its Gonna Save A Relationship ..Some For Financial Gain And Some Because Those People Are Just Dark And Evil Spirits .....And Sadly And Heartbreakingly You Only Have To Look At The Terrible Rise In Child Abuse And Fosterhomes Etc To See This :(((

Yes Not Obvioualy All Parents And People Are Like That As To Them Like Myself My Children Are A Precious Gift Who I Love More Than Life Itself And Who I Love And Protect And Cherish Deeply And Would Give My Life For .. But That Is And Was My Choice And Many Peoples Choices To Do And Want That Just As It Is And Was Yours And Many Peeps Choices To Not Want To Have Children And Yes In A Perfect World People Should Respect And Accept Both Yours And All Others Choices Of Not Wanting That And Not Judge Label And Be So Cruely And Unkindly Disrectful To You And Others For Yours And There Chosen Lifestyles .

But Sadly We Do NOT Live In A Perfect World And This World Of Mans Most People Feel The Need Like A Poisoness Obssession To Judge And Label EVERYTHING AND PEOPLE .

Be It Your Lifestyle Choices Or Sexual Preferrances ..The Way You Act Or Look And Live Yes Sadly Even Down To Peoples Choixes Of Not Wanting To Have Children It Seems As Welk Etc Etc Etc...Because You Simply Dont Fit Into Mans World BOX Of How And What You Are In There Closed Eyes And Minds Meant To Be..Think..Axt. Live..Etc Etc Etc.

But Always Remember Both You And All Others That You Will NEVER FIT INTO THAT BOX ..Because YOU HAVE BROKE FREE AND CLIMBED OUT OF THAT BOX ...Because You And Others Are Of The Few Peoples Who Walk Upon This World Of Man That

"WILLNEVER FIT INTO THAT BOX" Simply Because You All Were NOT AWAKENED/BORN AND MEANT TO FIT INTO THAT BOX .. Because Its Rare Peeps Like You And Others Who Always Are Open Honest And Truthful And Bring And Make And Add BEAUTIFULNESS AND BEAUTIFUL COLOUR To This Sadly GREY Colourless World Of Man.

So When Thiese Rude Unkind Disrespectful Etc People Judge And Label You And Others So Badly And Wrongly .......Feel Not Pain Or Anger Or Upset And Hurt ..Towards Them Nope Nada Just Feel Sorry For Them Because They Will Never Have Or Never Know And Never Feel . "Love Peace Happiness" What You And All Others Feel...

Because They Live Inside The Box Of Colourless Grey Dark Cold Ugglyness World Of Man And Never See The "Beautifulness And Colour And Feel The Love Peace And Happiness Of The FREEDOM Of "LIVING AND BEING OUTSIDE THE BOX":)))))

So Let Them Have There Uggly Words And Labels And Unkind Judgements Simply Because You And Others Do Not WANT OR NEED THAT And Would Never Want Or Need That To Simply Fit In And Be Accepted By The Box People Of Mans World ..Because You Have All What You Need Outside That Box And That Is Your OWN Beautifulness ..Love ..Peace And Happiness Because You Live In The REAL COLOURFUL WORLD Of Freedom To Choose And Free Choice Because You Are All Open Honest And Truthful To Yourselves And All Others And You "PAINT YOUR OWN COLOURS AND BRING COLOUR And ADD COLOUR TO THIS WORLD OF MAN" .:)))

Post by Maxal (Apr 8th 2018).

Surely, at some point we need to stop breeding and think? Quality over quantity. We need to pause on the breeding side and improve on other things. [Safer prisons, get rid of slavery in the UK, proper / intelligent debate on the position of drugs in society and informed help of attendant problems, proper mental health service, empowering education for every person, ditto work, ditto play . . .] It's a fallacy this thing that we need more kids to look after an increasing aged population. No doubt, we could figure out how to solve that little problem with fewer kids.

I do not think anything sensible will be done in regards to the future population levels, breeding and having a family is still firmly fixed in culture. Reproduction is essential to the survival of the human race, if nobody re-produced there would be no humans left. The level at which humans are reproducing just needs to come down a bit.

The reality of an ageing population is that it is expensive, taxation is what pays for it, so we need lots of people working and paying taxes.

While the main religions of the world continue to preach the doctrine of having large families, (in order to spread one's religion), there will be little hope for the future of humans self-regulating their populations in most parts of the world.

While the main religions of the world continue to preach the doctrine of having large families, (in order to spread one's religion), there will be little hope for the future of humans self-regulating their populations in most parts of the world.

They did know then. A lot of us in our 40s and 50s who are/were on the drug were also told back in the early 80s and before.

It seems to be younger people who have been affected. I've heard a couple of theories. One blames the medical profession and the other is just as valid but isnt voiced publicly.

Everyone I know on the drug either got of it to have kids, switched to have kids, adopted or remained childless - that is from my age group.

I remember being told, it was gory. The minute I had a serious boyfriend I was put on the pill.

Everytime they have tried to take me off Epilim, there has been some freaking hassle. I couldn't put a child through the potential risks from the drug or the seizures and everytime I've tried to switch lo lamotrigine or keppra - the current safer options everything has gone tits up.

I like kids. I spent decades working with them. I have 2 stepsons and 2 little grandkids. I can roll with it.

anyone gives me stick about not being a mother, I just tell them about the teratogenicity of my drug.

Never wanted kids, ever. Did fall in love and get married, still did not want kids. Mother in law stated that i only married her son as my biological clock was ticking away.. (I was 32, he was 21 when we got married) All was wellHit 37, fell pregnant completely by accident after a rather raucous night out and a bit o *billy* in the school playing field at the back of our house..

Nightmare from Hell. If i could turn the clock back, I wouldve not had the billy, i wouldve collapsed in a drunken heap and gone to sleep and not got pregnant.

(Love her to bits, BUT...... ) those that know on here, know why i am like i am about it all....

I wonder what my life wouldve been like had she not come along...?

Breathing is the most important thing in life, everything else can wait.

As if anyone has a right to own part of planet earth?.... I mean that seriously and wholeheartedly!

zendaze ever since I came accross you on this forum, all you’ve ever gone on about is having a plot to call your own. Every other statement is about Land a plenty and why you ain’t got hold of a bit because others have bought it, trusted it to their offspring or working it.

Land is up for sale accross the country. It may not be in a ideal location for your present job, it may not be ideal for vehicle access or of high agricultural or productive value. You can be sure that if it’s affordable, then like the rest of us peasant landowners, you won’t be allowed to reside on it.

zendaze in your mind, Does anyone have a right to own a home? A house? Or the ground beneath them?

If humans were battery farmed the world over, then that proposed system of land rental would be fair.

I drive by loads of beautiful large, well designed homes and think to myself “how much better my life could be” if that was my very own home. At the same time excepting that it’s not feasible for me to now buy/own any modest home of my own, due to my age and employment prospects.

What does frighten me is the high rental costs of all homes here in the U.K. imagine if that was the same case with your battery farmed idea, we could all find the price of residency anywhere crippling and head for the state run workhouse.

I see no difference between Land and home ownership. Be that a riverbank used for mooring, a woodland for leisure, arable land to keep the family pony on or a granny flat at the bottom of the garden. It’s all a question of scale. However farmland used in the production of food products is a business and to restrict the size of any business is for another discussion.

Land banking is directly effecting property prices in the U.K. However we can look at countries like China where whole towns/cities have been built and fail to attract occupants. Vast areas in Spain where road infrastructure surrounds vacant and partially built estates.

In 2002 a mate who was a building site manager pointed out that although they build one new house per week, the property value of the next house was increasing by £10,000 so Land banking or temporarily laying off labourers made good business sense.

zendaze - it seems to me your vehement opposition to land ownership is based on the fact you don't have land or a house, and that because you desire it so much and would yourself love to own some that desire for possession is what drives you the most to be anti land-ownership?

I can understand that. But I don't really see where it gets you or what it means in real terms. I don't really think your opinion is at fault either, you have good reason to feel as you do (but where is it going to get you?) Rather than tilting swords at windmills bankers, maybe you should concentrate on getting a bit of land for yourself. (Obviously I don't know what your situation is.)

I'd love to have a HUGE earth where there is so much land and earth that it doesn't matter about ownership. Nomads could go wherever they want, it'd be easy to avoid a plot of land that somebody obviously wanted to stake as their own because there are endless tracts of just-as-desirable land elsewhere. Buffalos roam, whole wild areas remain untouched and wild oceans crash at the edges . . .

But we're a planet with billions of people on it, many of them warring and causing destruction. That we have a system (capitalist purchase of land) that 'kind of' works for many different cultures shows land ownership by purchase is not the biggest problem we currently have on earth. [Yes, exploitation of the system should be separately addressed. I personally think as population increases, resources decrease, we need to start thinking about putting caps on personal wealth.] Bigger 'land problems' for instance are Israel and issues such as displaced people: what the Syrians are going to do and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, a ticking time bomb problem which could go either way.

I think I have seen you say something like there is plenty of land and food for people (it was in response to me saying something about my belief we are over-populated and need to think of population control on a global level). Land and food isn't only for people. With people dominating a lot of the earth, I feel strongly that any bit of earth NOT occupied by people is a good thing (I possibly care about that more than the principle of land ownnership).

One thing I'd like to say in terms of land management, I think farmers in the UK do a big service to the country, especially when the land is managed in an eco-aware manner. The state needs to support and oversee more eco-awareness, supermarkets need to stop exploiting their providers and consumers should expect to pay a proper price for valuable produce.

Sure....my philosophical position is based solely on unfulfilled desires...

I suppose you could also suppose that there isn't a single landowning soul out there who would (on some level) align with the view that humans have no right to private ownership of bits of planet earth.....

If you can't beat em then join em....

I understand my opinion is a bit challenging in some ways but it's quite snarky to belittle it by suggesting that I am feeling and not thinking and that it would lead to battery farming type living.

Land-owning is a complex thing. It is more important what the owner is doing with the land than who is owning it. We are only stewards of the land while we are here, anyway, whether we own it or rent it.

As a natural socialist I can ponder that it would be very fair if a government gave everybody a little bit of land. But it would not work. It's been tried times in the past, and humans being humans, it doesn't work.

Some would work their land, hopefully organically, and bring forth produce. Some would just grow enough to feed themselves, and never put anything by for a rainy day.

Some would not want the responsibility of running their own smallholding, so would rent out their land to others, or sell it and go work for someone else.

Some would just sit in the sun and philosophise, waste the land, and visit friends for a meal.

Some would sell their land for money and drink it and piss it against the wall.

"We are only stewards of the land while we are here, anyway, whether we own it or rent it." oldkeith

oldkeith - it is interesting what you say about land stewardship. I increasingly see consciousness like that. So in your above quote, substitute "land" for "consciousness". We all have our bodies to carry our consciousness and cultivate consciousness however our perceptions wish.

It could be that consciousness remains after 'death' as part of the universal consciousness (or variation thereof). I don't know, I don't think we are supposed to know.

In nature If there’s no room left for tree seeds to take root, or nutrients available for those roots, the issue of over-population of a species is resolved following a max genetic dormancy capability period. In nature trees live under a climax community. Much like the human race does. Those humans with space to grow and access to resources are in a better position to sustainably reproduce. In a semi developed environment humans would need tens of acres each to become sustainable. I know you hadn’t anticipated your vision of rented land plot allocation as factory farmed zendaze, with population increases, like water it would inevitably be drank many times over and eventually risk becoming infertile and unsustainable.

Well that would be yet another reason for the childfree to glean a little kudos...

Oldkieth....it's common and conventional to argue that folk cannot be trusted with land that is rented at below the going rate.

Pre maggie the social housing system seemed fairly adequate.

What are all these failed examples of democratised land sharing that you suggest?

People are choosing to live as singles for longer and are starting families later. ...Environmental awareness is heightened and consciousness raising continues apace....

The argument that the Hoi polloi cannot be trusted with land is an old and supremacist excuse that perpetuates the self justifications of some nasty capitalists....I don't buy it. And I don't for a single minute believe that you do either.

Zendaze, for a start in understanding the failed examples in history of why each person or family given a piece of land, by the state or by some other benefactor, study the history of the kibbutzim, from around 1910 onwards.

These started off as a combination of socialistic idealism and zionism, and developed over many years, so there is a long history to read of success and failures. Today, very many kibbutzim have been completely privatised.

The idea of equally-shared land, as we both agree, is excellent. But like the idea of government housing, or council housing, once human greed comes into the equation we get a result that is very different from that envisaged at the start of the experiment.

And as well as human greed we have human laziness, and waywardness, and drunkenness, and human inability to manage even a smallholding. If you really think that each person or family given a plot of land would be careful in husbandry, and in making the best they could of it, then you have far more faith in human nature than I have. Read about the history of the kibbutzim; it was an interesting social experiment, but even amongst a fairly disciplined people, it eventually fell to pieces.

"We are only stewards of the land while we are here, anyway, whether we own it or rent it." oldkeith

oldkeith - it is interesting what you say about land stewardship. I increasingly see consciousness like that. So in your above quote, substitute "land" for "consciousness". We all have our bodies to carry our consciousness and cultivate consciousness however our perceptions wish.

It could be that consciousness remains after 'death' as part of the universal consciousness (or variation thereof). I don't know, I don't think we are supposed to know.

I would venture that we are to some degree stewards of our physical forms (bodies) as well as our consciousness. If by consciousness you mean or include moral values and outlook on life, which hopefully should evolve and improve as we learn from life's experiences.

This - and the continuance of some form of consciousness after bodily death - are really topics for another thread, where no doubt we could have an interesting discussion.

Kibbutzim is a good example of an alternative land ownership model. However, that the kibbutzim didn't succeed in the way it was meant to only proves it failed in the time and culture in which the example was attempted. At the time, capitalisim proved to be the favoured model, no doubt its ways were an ever-present and overpowering attraction, instigated greed and other 'negative' drives which perhaps tore away at the kibbutzim model from the inside.

[Even though there are some countries which have other systems for their infra-structures, capitalism, globally, is the dominant system and to have a presence, nations have to conform to the capitalist system.]

It's true, capitalism, as a system is proving to be long enduring and remarkably flexible long term in its many manifestations and evolution over time. However, humans as a potential, over the full time span of their being - past and future, are NOT only definable in the ways they are within the current capitalist structure (greed, dog eat dog, basically selfish as well as other adjectives including positive, but supporting the capitalist model). We know this through many paths of study including sociological, psychological and economic.

Humans are many things, good and bad. Defining categorically, what the human condition (relevant to ALL) has not come up with much.

Sociology shows humans have been many different things (including gender role models being fluid and sometimes exactly opposed to what is current). Sociological studies show that people can exist in socialist structures. I think the Incas were a good example - yes, they had a godlike leader, but the actual structure of their society, when you read about it had a remarkable degree of socialism.

Economic studies show that every system eventually collapses. Capitalism might evolve to become something less selfish, more finely tuned to human, individual needs. Alternatively, it is feasible, that in the future, for some unknown reason - capitalism expires, becomes obsolete as a workable system due to some unforeseen occurrence. Humans could then become something else and have other defining traits, perhaps serve the group rather than the individual, be selfless.

In psychology, there is a lot of research in the area of plasticity of the human brain. Humans have the potential to become anything. At the moment, humans have created capitalism as such a strong, influential system, it is difficult to get away from the rebound that capitalism in return also shapes us. But it could all change, maybe through cataclysm, changing needs and long periods of time.

It is wrong to pick out individual traits of human beings during the capitalist era and fatalistically assume it is the human condition. Humans have infinite potential. Unfortunately that potential is limited by vision and whatever forms, clouds, focuses that vision during any given system. The capitalist era is not set in concrete, its current manifestation is a blip in our evolution. It is hard to get out of seeing things from a capitalistic framework when you are locked in it . . . but who knows what could happen, what all this is leading to?

In hundreds of years, mindsets such as Trump could be looked back on as highly antiquated, alien, barbaric, amusing. Or maybe not understood at all.

Meanwhile zendaze, I hope you are happy enough despite the land problem. There are options out there, maybe if you persevere on something that is attainable, I don't know . . . I still think we should stop breeding for ten years.

I'm a bit confused by the question because I think I have already answered for my opinion elsewhere.

If you can't beat em then join em.....

I want the land that is hogged by large landowners for profit and landbanking purposes to be released as land that can be respectfully borrowed from the planet and lived upon.

Whilst I understand that this may never happen and as such is a folly my opinion on the matter is not really at fault.

All land could be held in trust with nominal rents paid to the trust (for example).

I strongly disagree with the capitalist model of land ownership.

Display More

ALL property is theft , there got that one out of the way ,

owning a piece of land is no different that owning anything ( how you can say its ok to own a house or home but not to own land I dont get ? ) we only look after anything until the next person gets it anyway , I dont own a house but I do own a woodland , and you was quite happy to come and sit round a fire up there ? I dont understand you argument ? its better one of us owns something rather than one of them aint it ?